Walkability Measures for City Area in Indonesia (Case Study of Bandung)

Transcription

1 Walkability Measures for City Area in Indonesia (Case Study of Bandung) Sony S. WIBOWO a, Natalia TANAN b, Nuryani TINUMBIA c a,c Graduate School of Civil Engineering, Bandung Institute of Technology, Jalan Ganesha 10, Bandung Indonesia b Institute of Road Engineering Agency for Research and Development, Ministry of Public Works, Jalan A.H. Nasution no. 264 Bandung Indonesia a sonyssw@si.itb.ac.id; sonyssw@gmail.com b natalia.tanan@pusjatan.pu.go.id; natalia.tanan@icloud.com c nuryani.tz@gmail.com Abstract: For Indonesia cities, walking mode, is not yet preferred one because of lack of walking facilities. Walking assessment is needed to evaluate how the walking infrastructure and environment can encourage more walking. The research objective is to develop is walkability measures using the concept of walkability index with case of Bandung city. The index was considered as the quality parameter of walking facilities for ease to walk. Four city areas were used with nine parameters to assess the index. Based on the parameters, a scoring system was developed and to complete it, a survey form was developed and then filled up as an inventory survey along the dominants walking routes within theoretical catchment area of 800 meters from the center area. Research findings show that index for the study areas spread was relatively same. However, detail investigations on the index s parameters showed that were critical condition for walking facilities improvement. Keywords: walkability index; walkability in city area; walking infrastructure evaluation; 1. INTRODUCTION Walking is the most fundamental and important mode in transportation. In the concept accessibility, this mode has a role especially in public transportation. For a livable city, the ease to walk, associate with walking infrastructure and environment, is one of the important criteria. At the almost cities in Indonesia, walking as part of transportation activities, is not preferred mode. Some studies revealed that is caused by lack of walking infrastructure and walking environment (Wibowo and Gitawardhani, 2011; Tanan, 2011). However, how well the infrastructure and walking environment role the willingness to walk in those cities was not yet defined clearly. In order to encourage more walking in neighborhood area and for short distance transportation, it is needed an assessment procedure to evaluate current walking facilities, infrastructure, and walking environment. Currently, the Ministry of Public Works of Republic of Indonesia is developing the Green City Development Program (GCDP) that involved some sub programs, which is one of them, is sustainable transportation. The walking index was developed as part of assessment procedure for the sub program. The objective of this research is to develop walkability measures in particular city areas of Indonesia cities. In associate with GCDP, this study focused on walking infrastructure and walking environment assessment and it was derivative from Global Walkability Index after Krambeck (2006) and Leather et al. (2011). Bandung City, the fifth biggest city in Indonesia, was applied as the case study. 2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON WALKING MEASURES 1507

2 2.1 Walking Distance According to Rood (2001) and Vuchic (2005), theoretically, the catchment area for walking can be plotted to show the area of five minutes walking from the center of activities or ten minutes walking from the transportation terminal. The five minutes walking is about 0.25 mile or 400 meters and the ten minutes walking is about 0.4 mile or 800 meters. However, the acceptance walking distance was varied; depend on the geographical condition, climate, land use characteristic, and walking habit. Other factors, such as walking purposes, may influence the walking distance. For instance, walking as a part of recreation activities many have longer walking distance rather than walking to access terminal transportation. The illustration of walking distance to reach terminal transportation such as station or bus stop can be seen in the table below. Table 1 Various Walking Distance to Access Terminal Transportation Location Transit Walking System Distance (m) Remarks Source Canadian cities LRT General walking distance guidance for O Sullivan and Morrall, US cities LRT LRT 1996 UK Rail mode Bus National Travel Survey 1975/1976 Mitchell and Stokes, 1982 Brecon (UK) Bus Less than % outcome of interview survey Kean and Tyler, 1999 Scotland Rail mode 800 General walking distance guidance for Halden et al Bus 400 LRT Australia Bus 800 Maximum walking distance to change Pikora et al., 2001 mode Singapore MRT 631 Average walking distance Wibowo, 2005 Bus/LRT* 192/250 Mumbai (India) Rail mode 1, per cent of access trips Rastogi and Rao, 2003 Korea Subway Based on 10 minutes walking Lee et al., 2005 Japan MRT 360, 540, 720 Related to the grade of station area from Lee et al., 2005 As show in the table above, the walking distance to reach bus mode terminal was shorter than the distance to reach rail base terminal (station). Moreover, for the case of some cities in the tropical countries in Asia, the various distances to reach rail station in Bangkok, Manila, Singapore were relatively similar with those in Sapporo, Japan (Figure 1). 2.2 Walking Space Basically, sidewalk or walkway is provided to accommodate all activities related to walk, e.g. those who walk alone, walking in group, walking with pet, with pushchair, or even for running or just sightseeing. Each walking activity needs specific space for walking. Walking alone may need space of 0.5 to 0.6 meters width, but other activities may need bigger space. Beside that, sidewalk or walkway might need to have some walking furniture such as litter bins, chairs, and signs. Indonesia standard for pedestrian facilities, released several number of space for walking based on walking characteristic, as follow (Ministry of Public Work, 2014): Minimum space for walking alone and without carrying goods: 1.08 m 2 Minimum space for walking alone and carrying goods: m 2 An example of acceptable walking space in sidewalk on the commercial area for the case of Bandung can be illustrated in the following pictures (Wibowo and Rubhasy, 2010), see Figure

3 2006 Figure 1 Walking Distance to Reach Rail Station in several cities in Asia Cumula ve (%) women men Minimum Walking Space for Minimum Convenience (m2/person) 2 90 Cumula ve (%) years years years > 30 years Figure 2 Acceptable Minimum Walking Space for the case of Bandung City 2.3 Walking Effort Minimum Walking Space for Minimum Convenience (m2/person) Olszewski and Wibowo (2005) developed walking effort model for walking to access MRT stations for the case of Singapore MRT. It discussed about the effort of individual to access MRT station by walking. It is presumed that besides walking distance, this effort is affected by the characteristics of walking route. Thus, to quantify the effort of walking, a concept of 1509

4 equivalent walking distance was introduced. The model has two components, which are related to the characteristics of the walking route. The first component is the actual walking distance and the second one was is a generalized distance related to characteristics of the walking route. The model considered number of number of road crossings, number of ascending steps, and number of traffic conflict along walking route 2.4 Level of Service for Walking The concept of LoS for walking was developed by Fruin (1971) that was adopted from US Highway Capacity Manual 1965 and then incorporated in US HCM 1994 and The concept was derived from the walking density, speed, and flow relationship. Afterward, the concept was developed based on the freedom to select walking speed, the ability to pass slow-moving pedestrians, and relative ease of reverse and crossing movements under various pedestrian volumes. The letter of A, was assign to express the best condition, vise versa to letter of F, for the worse condition. Noted that this concept was seemly good for walkways. LOS A LOS D LOS B LOS E LOS C LOS F Figure 3 Illustration of Pedestrian Level of Service for Walkways Source: Modified from Fruin (1971) In the case of conflict between pedestrian flow and vehicle movement, i.e. sidewalk condition, The Pedestrian LoS was developed by the Florida Department of Transportation. The concept used an analytical approach, which is based on four variables: existence of a sidewalk; lateral separation of pedestrians from motorized vehicles; motorized vehicle volumes and speeds (FDOT, 2002). Dixon (1996) also introduced pedestrian LoS for sidewalks, which was based on pedestrian facilities, potential conflicts with vehicle movements, amenities (lighting and trees provided), traffic flow, and maintenance provided. Gallin (2001) identified three categories of factors affecting LoS for walking facilities. Unlike other LOS concepts, the concept used only letters A to E to describe the levels of service, while the letter A assign to the best and E to the worst. The LoS A indicates the best operating conditions and environment for pedestrians, which may include a wide path with a good quality surface, no obstructions, limited opportunities to conflict with vehicles, few cyclists to compete for space and a safe, pleasant, open environment with adequate lighting. The LoS E, on the other hand, is at the lowest end of the scale and may be allocated to a narrow path in an unsafe environment, which is close to moving vehicles and has many potential vehicle conflict points. 1510

5 2.5 Walkability and Walking Index Allan (2001) considered that walkability was related to connectivity in road network. It concerned that many cities have a coarse urban road grid that had large blocks impermeable for pedestrian access. How easily pedestrians can penetrate some blocks in the city center was expressed by pedestrian permeability. This concept is called Walking Permeability Distance Index (WPDI), which can be expressed by the following formula: WPDI Shortest practical distance though the network Airline Distance between origin and destination (1) It also suggested for analytical planning tool, the WPDI could be used to explore trip characteristics among origins and destinations in a local area, with WPDI=1.5 being set as the limit of accessibility for a development. The walking permeability index could also be expressed in terms of time. The equation is called Walking Permeability Time Index (WPTI): Actual distance time (including delay) WPTI Direct distance time (2) A higher value of WPTI of 2 may be needed to indicate the practical limit of pedestrian accessibility (Allan, 2001). Using the WPTI value and walking speed of 6 km/h for time endurance of 20 minutes, the maximum direct distance to a destination to be reached by walking would be 1 kilometer. Krambeck (2006) developed Global Walkability Index (GWI) that based on concept of safety, comfort, and policy support on walking facilities. The three components consist of variables in the Table 2. Subsequently, Leather et al. (2011) developed the GWI for the case of Asian cities. The result of their work was a list of walkability index for some cities in Asia. Tabel 2 Summary of components and variables Component Variable Safety and Security 1. Proportion of road accidents that resulted in pedestrian fatalities (most recent year avail.) 2. Walking path modal conflict 3. Crossing safety 4. Perception of security from crime 5. Quality of motorist behavior Convenience 6. Maintenance and cleanliness of walking paths and 7. Existence and quality of facilities for blind and disabled persons Attractiveness 8. Amenities (e.g., coverage, benches, public toilets) 9. Permanent and temporary obstacles on walking paths 10. Availability of crossings along major roads Policy Support 11. Funding and resources devoted to pedestrian planning 12. Presence of relevant urban design guidelines 13. Existence and enforcement of relevant pedestrian safety laws and regulations 14. Degree of public outreach for pedestrian and driving safety and etiquette Source: Krambeck (2006) This research employed the concept of GWI and incorporated it on the development of green city in Indonesia. Therefore, the parameters of walkability that used in this study were made in line with the framework of green city. 1511

6 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY In this study, the walkability how ease to walk can be expressed as an environment condition to walk for particular area in order to reach a desire destination (in that area). Noted that the characteristic of walking might differ depend on the purpose of walking. Walking facilities for access or to connect some area could be different with the facilities of walking for workout or walking for sightseeing or for shopping. The walkability concept incorporated connectivity by walking path, quality of walking facilities, walkway furniture, spot for communities to interact, and off course, walking safety and walking comfort. In point of view land use, the walkability can be examined as accessibility. To assess the walkability, a model of walkability index was developed which is expanded from the previous work by Leather et al. (2011). Nine parameters related to walking infrastructure and walking environment was developed for walkability index (presented in Table 3). In the assessment, each parameter was scored with value of 1 to 5, which is score of 1 for the worse condition, and 5 for the best one. To capture more specific condition, some parameter can be divided into 2 or 3 sub parameters. In this case, the score of the parameter would be the average score of its sub parameters. Some parameters needed to assess qualitatively that would be influenced by evaluator prejudice. To minimize it, before the assessment, the evaluators had to be trained first in order to get a common understanding on each parameter scoring. Also, each score in particular parameter was presented together with picture and short description. The following figure (Figure 4) shows the parameter and scoring system in the assessment form. Some pictures in figure might representative situation of walking facilities in developing countries. Noted that the figure was presented as well in Tanan and Wibowo et al, (2015). Table 3 List of Parameter to Assess the Index No Parameter Description 1 Pedestrian conflict with other motorized mode Focus in potential conflict between vehicle movement and pedestrian flow. Some conflict between pedestrian and other non-motorized such as bike or becak (Indonesia rickshaw) was considered as well. 2 Presence walking facilities Considering on presence of sidewalk along to route. If so, the surface condition and cleanness were evaluated as well. 3 Crossing availability It is about the availability of crossing facilities, such as zebra cross, pedestrian bridge, tunnel and so on. Traffic also affect this, such as average speed of vehicles 4 Safe crossing Noted that in case of many developing countries, pedestrian on zebra cross, for example, is not become priority yet. On the other hand, in lack of crossing facilities jaywalk crossing is present. This parameter consider on exposure in crossing, time to wait and time needed to cross 5 Motorist behavior This is to express the situation where the crossing facilities were blocked by vehicle, especially motorcycle, 6 Walking amenities Appearance the walking amenities along the walking route. 7 Walking infrastructure for disability Appearance walking infrastructure and special structure on walking path for disability people 8 Obstruction Considering on permanent and temporary obstruction along the walking route 9 Walking secure General situation on presence insecure on the walking route, especially walking in the night or in silent route 1512

7 #1 Pedestrian conflict with other motorized mode #2 Presence walking facilities (with maintenance and clean) #3 Crossing availability 1513

8 #4 Safe crossing (exposure, waiting time to cross, sufficient time to crossing) #5 Motorist behavior 1514

9 #6 Walking amenities #7 Walking infrastructure for disability #8 Obstruction (permanent, temporary) #9 Walking secure Figure 4 Scoring System for the Parameter 1515

10 To complete the scoring system, a survey form was developed and the procedure to fill up the form is as follow. First, for each location in particular area, center activity of the location was determined. It should be main desire walking destination in the location. Second, the catchment area was as circular area with 800 meters of radii from the desire destination. Third, within the catchment area, some dominant routes to reach the desire destination were identified. The dominant walking routes were selected based on direct observation Route with more pedestrian was considered as the dominant one the other routes for the same pair of origin destination within catchment area. Each route then was divided into several segments, based on infrastructure characteristics. For instance, walkway and sidewalk in a route were considered as different segment. Next, each segment was scored using the survey form and finally, the index was calculated. The following formula was developed to calculate the walkability index for each walking route. walkability _ index = where: n lj scorei n å j=1 l j 9 å i=1 n l j å j=1 score i : number of segment of a route : length of segment j (meters) : segment score for parameter i 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION The data was collected along the main walking routes in the catchment area. The origin point of the route was about 800 meters of airline distance from the destination point, i.e. main gate of the central activity of the subsequent location. List of locations for the study area can be seen in Table 4. Actually, the survey was an inventory survey on the walking routes. Each route was divided into several segment based on infrastructure characteristics. Each segment then valued based on the parameters. Table 4 Characteristics of City Areas Type of Area Location Remarks Educational Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB) Destination point of this location was main gate of the university; within the catchment area, there were seven Commercial State Polytechnic Bandung (Polban) Cihaurgeulis traditional market dominant walking routes Located in northern area of Bandung; having four dominant walking routes to reach the destination from within the catchment area The busiest time was in the morning; located closed to the residential area; having four dominant walking routes. Simpang Dago traditional market The busiest time was in the morning to the noon and after evening; closed to mix area of educational and residential; having five dominant walking route Transit terminal Cibeureum Terminal for city bus; closed to residential area; having Ledeng four main walking routes to reach the terminal Terminal for regional area (Bandung and its surrounding); located closed to mix area of educational (3) 1516

11 Type of Area Location Remarks and residential; having five main walking routes to reach the terminal Worship (mosque) Masjid Raya Cipaganti Masjid Pusdai Busiest time is in Friday noon (activity for Friday Prayer for Moslem); located to residential area and having five dominant walking routes to reach the mosque Located near to commercial and office area; having five dominant walking routes. Based on parameter scoring, the environment of walking was investigation per each parameter. To express the value of the parameter scoring, the normalization to the score of 100 was applied. The spider-net graph was applied to present scoring of the particular parameter for each route. In the graph, the value of 100 reflected the ideal condition. Figure 5 shows the graph as represented walking index. As shown in the figure above, in the spider-net graph, the pattern of each location looked similar. It could be deemed that walking condition in the city areas faces similar problem related to the walking infrastructure and walking environment. The finding could give insight problems on walking facilities for the city areas. Almost all routes were good in the term of walking secure (#9), crossing availability (#3), safe crossing (#4), and motorist behavior (#5). On the other hand, there were problem and bad condition on walking obstruction (#8) and walking amenities (#6). The worse situation was revealed for walking infrastructure for disability (#7). For educational area, case of ITB, there was 7 main walking routes from the surrounding area to entrance the campus through two main gates (i.e. South and North Gate). From the assessment, it was found that almost all routes have similar condition. Other campus, i.e. Polban, has 4 walking routes to entrance the main gate, which is slightly different each other. To have precise index, the following table (i.e. Table 5) shows the summary of index for each city area. As shown in the table, the value of the walking index falls in to the range of 60 to 70. Since the best condition of the index is 100, thus the obtaining values could tell that the walking infrastructure and environment stand on 60 to 70 of 100. After the work of Leather et al. (2011) the range value of was considered as good enough for walking. Educational Area (Universities) ITB Polban 1517

12 Commercial Area (Traditional Markets) Cihaurgeulis Simpang Dago Transit Terminal (City Bus Terminal) Cibeureum Ledeng Worship Area (Mosque) Cipaganti Pusdai Figure 5 Parameter Scoring for Each Route in Particular Location 1518

13 Table 5 Walkability Index for the Study Area City Area Location Route_# Route Length (m) Walkability Index Educational Commercial Transit Terminal Worship (Mosque) 5. CONCLUSION ITB Polban Cihargeulis Simpang Dago Cibereum Ledeng Masjid Raya Cipaganti Masjid Pusdai route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ route_ Walkability index can be seen as the quality of walking, related to walking infrastructure and walking environment. Other aspect such as safety, walking convenience, comfort, and security incorporate as well into the index. Research findings show that walkability index for the study areas (education, commercial, city terminals, and worship) have relatively same number, i.e. fall into the value between 60 to 70, which can be deemed walking facilities of 100 is good. However, this conclusion should be read with caution since detail score on the index s parameters showed some critical condition for walking improvement. In this study, the walking assessment focused on the walking infrastructure and walking environment. Further research can add more parameters into the index that corporate level of

14 attractiveness (for pedestrian), walking demand in the area, and government role in walking facilities improvement. By adding those parameters, the assessment could reveal and cover more aspect in walking environment and meet stakeholders intention. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Some data that used in this paper already presented in the master thesis of the third author. This research is part of research road map in Green City Development Program that supported by the Institute of Road Engineering Agency for Research and Development, Ministry of Public Works and collaboration with Transportation Research Group of Bandung Institute of Technology. REFERENCES Allan, A. (2001), Walking as a Local Transport Modal Choice in Adelaide, Australia: Walking the 21st Century, Proceeding, February, Perth, West Australia, pp Dixon, L. (1996), Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems, Transportation Research Record No 1538, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC, pp FDOT (2001), Transit Level of Service (TLOS) Software, User s Guide, Version 3.1, Florida Department of Transportation. Fruin, J.J. (1971), Pedestrian Planning and Design, Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners, Inc., New York. Gallin, N. (2001), Quantifying Pedestrian Friendliness Guidelines for Assessing Pedestrian Level of Service, Australia: Walking the 21st Century, Proceeding, February, Perth, West Australia, pp Halden, D., McGuigan, D., Nisbet, A., and McKinnon, A. (2000), Accessibility: Review of Measuring Techniques and Their Application, Scottish Executive Central Research Unit. Kean, A. and Tyler, N. (1999), Accessibility and Community-Centred Public Transport, Final Report, Centre for Transport Studies, University of London, London. Leather, J., Gota S., Fabian H.G., Mejia A.A., and Punte S.S., (2011), Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Asian Cities, ADB Sustainable Development Working Paper Series, Metro Manila, Phillipines. Lee, K.I, Kim, K.J., and Kwon, S.J., 2005, A Study on Characteristics of Subway Utilization and Pedestrians Accessibility at New Towns in Korea, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, vol. 4, no.1, pp Ministry of Public Work (2014), Pedoman Perencanaan, Penyediaan, dan Pemanfaatan Prasarana dan Sarana Jaringan Pejalan Kaki, Law No. 03/PRT/M/2014 (in Bahasa Indonesia) Mitchell, C.G.B. and Stokes, R.G.F. (1982), Walking as a Mode Transport, TRRL Laboratory Report 1064, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Department of the Environmental, Department of Transport. Netipunya, P. (2006), Transit Station Accessibility: A Case Study of BTS Commuters in Downtown Bangkok, Master Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand. Olszewski, P. and Wibowo, S.S. (2005), Using Equivalent Walking Distance to Access 1520

15 Pedestrian Accessibility to Transit Stations in Singapore, Transportation Research Record, No. 1927, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC. O Sullivan, S. and Morrall, J. (1996), Walking Distances to and from Light-Rail Transit Stations, Transportation Research Record, No. 1538, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC, pp Pikora, T.J., Giles-Corti, B., and Donovan, R. (2001), How Far will People Walk to Facilities in Their Local Neighbourhoods, Australia: Walking the 21st Century, Proceeding, February, Perth, West Australia, pp Rastogi, R. and Krishna Rao, K. V., Travel Characteristics of Commuter Accessing Transit: Case Study, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 129, No. 6, ASCE, 2003, pp Rood, T., (2001), Ped Sheds, Congress for the New Urbanism, USA. Wibowo, S.S. (2005), Modeling Walking Accessibility to Public Transport Terminal, Master Thesis, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Wibowo, S.S. (2008), Evaluation of Accessibility to Mass Transit Systems in Bangkok and Manila, PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Chulalongkorn Unviersity, Thailand. Wibowo, S.S. and Rubhasy, I. (2010), Individual Preferences for Sidewalk Space in Bandung, Poster presented at the 3 rd ASEAN Civil Engineering Conference (JSPS Asian Core Program), EDSA Shangri-la Hotel, Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila, November 11 12, Wibowo, S.S. and Gitawardhani, F. (2011), Comfortable Walking Space in City Area (in Bahasa Indonesia), Paper presented at the National Seminar on Regional Infrastructure Technology Applications, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS), Surabaya, Indonesia, July 21. Tanan, N. (2011), Walking Facilities (in Bahasa Indonesia), Research Note, Institute of Road Engineering, Ministry of Public Works, Indonesia. Tanan, N and Wibowo, S.S et al. (2015), The Develompment of Walkability Assessment Method In Indonesia(in Bahasa Indonesia), Proceeding of Colloquium, Institute of Road Engineering, Ministry of Public Works, Indonesia Vuchic, V.R., (2005), Urban Transit, Operations, Planning and Economics, Wiley, Pennsylvania, USA. 1521